The Japanese government’s announcement last week of the end of its summer power-saving initiative proved the country's new energy strategy can and should include an immediate phase-out of nuclear power.

With its support for nuclear power, the government has been putting its people unnecessarily at risk, given the ongoing threats from earthquakes, but it underestimated the public.

The Japanese people have shown in recent months that they can achieve the power savings needed to achieve the nuclear-free future almost 90% of them are calling for.

The feared power shortages used to justify the reckless restart of the Ohi nuclear power plant never materialised. This is precisely what independent experts were advising in April, but the government chose to ignore them.

The proof is here in black and white. Switching reactors back on and extending their lifespans for decades will create more unnecessary risk for Japan's population, its businesses and the national economy.

The only way forward that will satisfy all three is to abandon destructive, expensive and unwanted nuclear power and make a strong commitment to renewable energy.

The summer's power savings proved Japan could carry on as usual without nuclear power. A complete phase-out of nuclear power should now be included when the country announces its new energy strategy for 2030.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Clive
says:

Something missing in this account: how is Japan doing on tackling climate change? You didn't mention if greenhouse gas emissions are up and by how...

Something missing in this account: how is Japan doing on tackling climate change? You didn't mention if greenhouse gas emissions are up and by how much (other than saying they need to get 'back on track')

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) merelyuseful
says:

They might have doubled their carbon burn rate to do it. I'm a big Greenpeace supporter but articles like this that obviously don't give the ...

They might have doubled their carbon burn rate to do it. I'm a big Greenpeace supporter but articles like this that obviously don't give the whole picture leave you open to attack for being selective with your information.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

@merelyuseful: before Fukushima nuclear accounted for 5% of the total energy consumption in Japan (including non-electric); shutting down nuclear can&...

@merelyuseful: before Fukushima nuclear accounted for 5% of the total energy consumption in Japan (including non-electric); shutting down nuclear can't have doubled emissions.
@George C: are you sure that the current rate of exchange of the Japanese currency has nothing to do with Japan trade deficit?
@Clive: if you were raising your kids in Fukushima I bet you would be less mindful of global climate.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@ George C - Greenpeace is fighting for a nuclear phase-out world-wide as well as for a fossil phase-out. Our Energy [R]evolution Scenario for Japan, ...

@ George C - Greenpeace is fighting for a nuclear phase-out world-wide as well as for a fossil phase-out. Our Energy [R]evolution Scenario for Japan, made in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, shows that Japan can keep its climate targets while keeping its nuclear capacity shut. You can download it from http://www.energyblueprint.info.
That the Japanese government is following another track so far - by being soft-handed towards the energy monopolies - it its political choice and you cannot blame Greenpeace for that, nor the Japanese population. The currently proposed programme to move away from nuclear before 2030 is in that respect indeed not strong and sufficient enough. But keeping nuclear power stations open longer would not address the fundamental flaws of that programme: these are in the lack of sufficient support for the development of the alternatives... Nevertheless it's an interesting step into the right direction and with global renewable energy development going as it does, I think there is a lot of space for optimism that the current proposals could lead to a lot better result in the end.

That the shift away from nuclear does not automatically mean an increase in fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions can be seen currently in Germany, where 2011 saw a 5% decrease in CO2 emissions in times of a positive GDP growth.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Chris
says:

I was under several impressions that make me read this article with scepticism. I write in the hope that any of them can be categorically undermined. ...

I was under several impressions that make me read this article with scepticism. I write in the hope that any of them can be categorically undermined. I would love to see the end of nuclear power, but I'd far rather see emissions falling, and I do not understand the two to be compatible.

(1) As a worldwide strategy, ending nuclear will increase dependency on fossil fuels because renewable sources are nowhere near able to make up for the loss. I thought in the average country (ie, not endowed with hydroelectric etc) renewables contributed much less than 10% to total energy supply and nuclear made much much more than that.

(2) I understood that the reductions in emissions recently achieved in many countries was due to the collapse in the price of gas, leading to its replacing coal, and that this was despite the added burden of reducing nuclear power.

(3) Renewable development subsidies are decreasing because they have proven to be unaffordable in today's climate, so saying they are insufficient is not a realistic strategy for change.

(4) The best way to control the climate is by making CO2 emissions cost money. This will increase incentives to develop renewable sources, but will also incentivise nuclear over gas and especially coal. This seems a desirable and realistic political strategy that should take precedence over nuclear eradication. However this might be partially undermined by adding regulation that prevent businesses from making investments based on the regulatory environment.

(5) Japan's example cannot be generalized to apply to other countries to achieve these conclusions you draw because (i) the problems with Japan's nuclear industry are not related to nuclear technology, but to political nepotism; (ii) the achieving of power saving targets was due to the Japanese public's incredible spirit of working together; (ii) they now import large quantities of fossil fuels, whereas they used to export, which has crippled their balance of payments in an already fragile economy. (Your 'proof in black and white' that this would endanger businesses and the economy sounds like the hysterical scaremongering you accuse the nuclear industry of - this was unwarranted and only weakens a potentially rigorous argument.)

In sum due to my beliefs, I feel banning nuclear power generation is a distraction from a message that needs to be simple - I'd prefer political energies were focused on pricing carbon.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@Chris - Fortunately your scepticism is not based in reality.

(1) Nuclear power only covers a tiny bit of the total global energy production and therefore its part can be taken over by efficiency and renewables, as is shown in practice in Germany and Spain, as examples. Real growth rates of the different renewable energy sources are factors 6 to 10 higher than predicted by the International Energy Agency and the IEA's recent predictions move fast to the ones in the energy [r]evolution scenario - the only scenario study around that was more or less in line with reality over the last 8 years in that respect. Nuclear energy makes only in a few countries more than 10% of the electricity mix and as far as I am aware only in France and Slovakia more than 10% of the total energy mix.

(2) The lower gas-price in the US (not worldwide, because in most parts of the world the gas price is linked to the oil price) because of fracking has certainly helped destroying the case for new nuclear there. But the gas price is not the reason behind falling emissions in countries like Germany or Sweden. (And fracking not the solution to the US greenhouse gas emission addiction).

(3) There are different support forms for renewable energy. Subsidies are indeed an unstable support form and subject to political rambling. Feed-in-tariffs appear to be a more sturdy way to balance the inequality between renewables as relatively new technology coming on the market against fossil fuels and nuclear that in the past received far larger amounts of subsidy and in many parts of the world still do. The idea behind support for renewable energy sources is a kick-start support in the start (in the form of quite high guaranteed feed-in-tariffs), which gradually decreases towards zero.
There have indeed been problems with the feed-in-tariff structure of PV in the Czech Republic and Germany because costs of PV fell so much more than the annual FiT reduction that the market boom ran in some areas out of control. This has been corrected in both countries, be it in the Czech Republic with a lot of anti-renewable hysteria which did the debate no good.
Currently, the first two large scale PV-power stations in Spain are finalised without any subsidy or feed-in-tariff. In Germany there are wind providers who prefer to deal on the market instead asking for feed-in-tariffs.
New nuclear, however, is desperately looking for large pots of subsidies - and those for the long term. The feed-in-tariff /. contracts for difference they seek in the UK, for instance, practically mean a subsidy for 30 years at least...

(4) Nuclear power is already /de facto/ phasing out, because most of the power stations were build in the 1970s and early 1980s and are approaching the end of their technical life-time. The problems we face are plant life-time-extension (which pushes power stations over their technical limits and thus increases the risk on larger accidents) and new construction (which is simply too expensive). The first is a game of Russian roulette, which is, when the development of efficiency and renewables is taken seriously, not necessary at all (see for instance Germany). The latter - nuclear new build - is ruled out in the market because of the high construction costs (see recently Bulgaria, the US and many 'new entrants' that stepped away from the nuclear option, as well as the debate around subsidies in the UK). Hence the search and lobbying for new subsidies by the nuclear industry.

(5) Japan can meet it's Kyoto commitments while leaving the currently stopped nuclear capacity off-line for good. We have shown so in the energy [r[evolution scenario for Japan that can be downloaded from www.energyblueprint.info. So why take the risk?

The interesting thing is that in the last year, the market in Japan has proven one thing: higher electricity costs are an effective tool to push for savings - both through technology and behavioural change.
Carbon pricing certainly has an important role to play in fighting climate change, but not in the wishy-washy way it is happening now (with too many branches getting free allowances and too many allowances on the market keeping the prices too low). The end-of pipe-solutions as debated in the UK, like a bottom-carbon-price (a discussion driven by the nuclear industry looking for subsidies, not by concerns for climate change!), will not help a single bit as long as the amount of emission rights on the market is still too high.

Fighting to tackle climate change implies also getting rid of the barriers against change. Nuclear power is one of these barriers. It cannot deliver meaningful emission reductions, what it can deliver it does so too late, against too high costs, it is a barrier and in future even a block against uptake of large volumes of variable renewable input, and it has its inherent problems like the unsolvable waste problem, the rest risk on large accidents and proliferation. Fighting to halt global warming and fighting nuclear power go hand in hand - both are part of a truly, positive and realistic energy [r]evolution.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

Chris,
in the case of Japan nuclear used to make up 5% of the total energy consumption. It is hard to believe that between renewable sources and...

Chris,
in the case of Japan nuclear used to make up 5% of the total energy consumption. It is hard to believe that between renewable sources and power savings Japan can't do without that 5% coming from nuclear power.

By the way, Japan power saving targets (about 10%) have been met and exceeded this summer. Note however that such power savings were devised to curb peak demand (for air conditioning) rather than total consumption. At the same time it was also found out that there was no much need to curb peak demand in the first place because Japan has plenty of generation capacity.

Nuclear is no answer to CO2 emission curbing: it costs too much and is way too risky -- ask people in Chernobyl and Fukushima.